alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-40649

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ASCENCION GARZA,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-96-CR-314-6

--------------------

July 13, 2001

Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ascencion Garza appeals his conviction and sentence after

pleading guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to

distribute more than 1,000 kilograms of marijuana. First, he

argues that the district court erred in the amount of drugs it

attributed to him at sentencing because the information upon

which it relied did not possess sufficient indicia of

reliability. Next, he argues that the district court erred in

failing to make required conspiratorial and foreseeability

findings in connection with his relevant conduct. Finally, he
No. 00-40649

-2-

argues that the instant prosecution for conspiracy violated

double jeopardy because it followed a conviction for possession

with intent to distribute marijuana “arising under the same

alleged conspiracy.”

Garza’s arguments are unavailing. The district court did

not err in considering the statements of two of Garza’s

coconspirators, which are part of the record on appeal, in

arriving at its drug-quantity finding. See United States v.

Gaytan, 74 F.3d 545, 558 (5th Cir. 1996). In any event, the

unrebutted information in Garza’s presentence report, which the

district court explicitly adopted, was sufficient to support the

court’s drug-quantity finding. See United States v. Vela, 927

F.2d 197, 201 (5th Cir. 1991); United States v. Mir, 919 F.2d

940, 943 (5th Cir. 1990). In light of that information, the

court’s drug-quantity finding was not clearly erroneous. See

United States v. Davis, 76 F.3d 82, 84 (5th Cir. 1996). 

Moreover, the district court made any required conspiratorial and

foreseeability findings implicitly when it adopted the

presentence report. See United States v. Duncan, 191 F.3d 569,

575-76 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1122 (2000);

United States v. Garcia, 86 F.3d 394, 400-01 (5th Cir. 1996). 

Finally, Garza’s double-jeopardy claim fails because

a substantive crime and a conspiracy to commit that crime are

separate offenses for double-jeopardy purposes. United States v.

Brown, 29 F.3d 953, 957 (5th Cir. 1994).

AFFIRMED.
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

U.S.-Canada Greenhouse-Grown Plant

Certification Program

Last Modified: 

Print

Import of greenhouse-grown plants from Canada is simplified by the revised U.S.-

Canada Greenhouse Certification Program (GCP). A cooperative greenhouse

certification program has been in place between the United States (as the USCGP)

and Canada (as the CGCP) since 1996. 

The program facilitates the trade of greenhouse-grown plants between the United

States and Canada by allowing authorized facilities to use an Export Certification

Label (ECL, also called a “GCP Sticker”) in lieu of a phytosanitary certificate.  To

improve the consistency and effectiveness of the program (previously called the

USGCP), APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) and the Canadian Food

Inspection Agency (CFIA) have revised the program requirements. This revised

program joins the Canadian Greenhouse-grown Certification Program (CGCP) and the

USGCP into one program. The Technical Requirements document outlines the

responsibilities of the participating facilities and of APHIS and CFIA under the revised

GCP.

Technical Requirements, U.S.-Canada Greenhouse-Grown Plant Certification

Program
Background information on the greenhouse program, an overview of the revised

Technical Requirements, and a questions and answers document are provided below

to assist participants in meeting the requirements.

Background: U.S.-Canadian Greenhouse-Grown Plant Certification Program

Overview and Highlights of the Revised Technical Requirements

Questions and Answers

The comments and concerns identified by stakeholders during the 2014 consultation

period were taken into account during the revisions.

To facilitate an orderly transition to the revised program, APHIS, CFIA, and their

cooperators are providing training and assistance to participants. Authorized

Facilities in Canada can continue to use their existing CGCP export certification

labels to ship to U.S. importers through the transition period. At the end of the

transition period, the CFIA will collect the export certification labels and interfacility

stamps of any facilities which have not completed the transition to the GCP.

USDA Approved Facilities Authorized to Participate in GCP (GCP, Revised 2016)

CFIA Approved Facilities Authorized to Participate in GCP (GCP, Revised 2016)

More Information

For more information, or if you have questions about the Technical Requirements,

please send inquiries to RCC@usda.gov.
**EXHIBIT31.2**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) OR RULE 15d-14(a)OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACTOF 1934,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, James G. Thomasch, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PLCSystems Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

b) [Not Applicable];

c) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

d) Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls overfinancial reporting.
| Date: May 15, 2006 |   | /s/ James G. Thomasch   |
|-------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                    |   | James G. Thomasch       |
|                    |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
United States Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Wildlife Services Directive

2.425
02/14/13

DENNING
PURPOSE

The purpose of this Directive is to provide guidelines for the use of denning to protect
agriculture, natural resources, property, and human health and safety.

REPLACEMENT HIGHLIGHTS
This Directive revises Wildlife Services (WS) Directive 2.425 dated May 20, 2004.
AUTHORITY

Authority to promulgate a policy addressing fumigants or pesticide use is pursuant to the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act dated September 28, 2012.

POLICY

To avoid exposure to disease and the potential for a den to cave in when excavating,
registered fumigants will be used for denning unless circumstances render their use
ineffective.

BACKGROUND

Denning is an approved WS method for managing wildlife damage. This form of damage
management is accomplished by using fumigants registered for this purpose or by
excavating the den.

DEFINITION

Denning is defined as a technique used for managing damage to livestock, or other
resources, and/or reducing threats to human health and safety caused by predators or
burrowing rodents.


Wildlife Services Directive 2.425 2

Pe IMPLEMENTATION

a. Predators removed by denning will be humanely euthanized in accordance with WS
Directive 2.505, Lethal Control of Animals.

b. Deviation from this policy must be approved by the Regional Director.

8. APPLICABILITY AND SCOPE
This Directive applies to all WS personnel.

9. REFERENCES
a. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.), as
amended.

b. 40 CFR Part 153.75 — Toxic or Adverse Effect Incident Reports (a)(1)(i) through (iii).
c. WS Directive 2.505, Lethal Control of Animals (5/18/2011)

William H. Clay 4

Deputy Administrator
H. Res. 338 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

June 25, 2015. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to take from the Speaker’s table the bill (H.R. 

1295) to extend the African Growth and Opportunity Act, 

the Generalized System of Preferences, the preferential duty 

treatment program for Haiti, and for other purposes, with 

the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the House, without intervention of any point of order, a motion offered by 

the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means or his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the 

House amendment to the Senate amendment. The Senate 

amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The 

motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and 

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 

Committee on Ways and Means. The previous question shall 
2 

•HRES 338 EH 

be considered as ordered on the motion to adoption without 

intervening motion. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    HomeExplore the Capitol CampusGrounds Features
Senator Thomas P. Gore Tree
        
                  The Basics
      
Materials
    Chestnut Oak

Year
    1949

Location
      
Capitol Square, N.E.

U.S. Capitol Grounds

                  View on Map

Text on the Plaque

U.S. Capitol Grounds
Memorial Tree

*Quercus prinus*
(Chestnut Oak)

In Memory of Senator Thomas P. Gore

April 16, 1949
          
    
      Image Gallery
    
    The Senator Thomas P. Gore tree on the U.S. Capitol Grounds during summer.

The Senator Thomas P. Gore tree on the U.S. Capitol Grounds during summer.
    The Senator Thomas P. Gore tree on the U.S. Capitol Grounds during winter.

The Senator Thomas P. Gore tree on the U.S. Capitol Grounds during winter.
    The Senator Thomas P. Gore tree on the U.S. Capitol Grounds during spring.

The Senator Thomas P. Gore tree on the U.S. Capitol Grounds during spring.

      Previous Image
        Next Image

          The Senator Thomas P. Gore tree on the U.S. Capitol Grounds during summer.
      The Senator Thomas P. Gore tree on the U.S. Capitol Grounds during winter.
      The Senator Thomas P. Gore tree on the U.S. Capitol Grounds during spring. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                            5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
COMPANY'S  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  CONTAINED IN THE COMPANY'S 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD
ENDED  SEPTEMBER  30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                      JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                        SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                                       75
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                             6,238
<ALLOWANCES>                                                783
<INVENTORY>                                                 455
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          6,582
<PP&E>                                                   12,307
<DEPRECIATION>                                            1,982
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           19,036
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                     6,635
<BONDS>                                                   3,401
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                  3,276
<OTHER-SE>                                                3,450
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             19,036
<SALES>                                                   9,115
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         36,628
<CGS>                                                    29,527
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            36,118
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            132
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          105
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            (130)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 20
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        (150)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                               (150)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                              (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              (.05)
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT LEE STEWART, Jr.,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.
MARICOPA COUNTY JAIL; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 21

- 15061

D.C. No. 2:20

- cv
- 00979

- SPL

- ESW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 12, 2021 * *

Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Arizona state prisoner Robert Lee Stewart, Jr. appeals pro se from the

district court ’ s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
inadequate medical care and conditions

- of

- confinement claims arising from his
pretrial detention

. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

OCT 20 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 15061

novo the district court ’ s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes , 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court proper ly dismissed Stewart’s action because Stewart failed
to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Gordon v. County of
Orange , 888 F.3d 1118, 1122 , 1125 (9th Cir. 2018) (setting forth objective
deliberate indifference standard for Fourteenth Amendment inadequate medical

care and conditions

- of

- confinement claims brought by pretrial detainees) ; Castro v.
County of Los Angeles , 833 F.3d 1060, 1073

- 76 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc )
(discussing requirements to establish municipal liability under Monell v.
Department of Social Services , 436 U.S. 658 (1978)) ; Hebbe v. Pliler , 627 F.3d

338, 341

- 42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a
plaintiff must alle ge facts sufficient to state a plausible claim)

.
Stewart’s motion for a response from the court (Docket Entry No. 11 ) is

denied.

AFFIRMED

.
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 171 

Electing Members to the Joint Committee of Congress on the Library and 

the Joint Committee on Printing. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 25, 2015 

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on House Administration 

RESOLUTION 

Electing Members to the Joint Committee of Congress on 

the Library and the Joint Committee on Printing. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. ELECTION OF MEMBERS TO JOINT COMMITTEE 

3 OF CONGRESS ON THE LIBRARY AND JOINT 

4 COMMITTEE ON PRINTING. 

5 (a) JOINT COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS ON THE LI6 BRARY.—The following Members are hereby elected to the 

7 Joint Committee of Congress on the Library, to serve with 

8 the chair of the Committee on House Administration and 

9 the chair of the Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch 

10 of the Committee on Appropriations: 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 171 IH 

1 (1) Mr. Harper. 

2 (2) Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania. 

3 (3) Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California. 

4 (b) JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING.—The following 

5 Members are hereby elected to the Joint Committee on 

6 Printing, to serve with the chair of the Committee on 

7 House Administration: 

8 (1) Mr. Harper. 

9 (2) Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois. 

10 (3) Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania. 

11 (4) Mr. Vargas. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

NWRC Research Areas: Technology

Transfer

Last Modified: 

Print

APHIS' WS program often partners with private-sector industries to develop new

tools and techniques for resolving human-wildlife conflicts related to agriculture,

human health and safety, property, invasive species, and threatened and

endangered species.
WS promotes the adoption of research outcomes by end users. Methods of

technology transfer are varied and include publishing research findings, producing

technical notes and factsheets, presenting at scientific meetings, hosting

demonstrations and workshops, and protecting and licensing inventions for

developing commercial products.

The Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 changed how Federal Government

research and development agencies do business, allowing Federal laboratories and

industry to form commercial partnerships that enhance the development of new

technologies and move them to marketplace. WS strives to transfer and market new

technologies related to wildlife damage management from its research. It has

formed numerous partnerships using Cooperative Research and Development

Agreements (CRADA). WS works in cooperation with USDA's Office of Technology

Transfer (OTT), housed in the Department's Agricultural Research Service (ARS), to

facilitate and coordinate these partnerships.

Additional information can be found in Technology Transfer: Partnering with Wildlife

Services.

Contact Us

Technology Transfer Program

Sarah Hibbs-Shipp, Technology Transfer Program Manager

Email: sarah.hibbs-shipp@usda.gov

Phone: 970-266-6048

National Wildlife Research Center

4101 LaPorte Ave

Fort Collins, CO 80526
Exhibit 99.6
  CEO AND CFO SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION
 
  February 2, 2015
   Securities and Exchange Commission
 450 Fifth Street, N.W
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 
 Ladies and Gentlemen:
 
 The certification set forth below is being submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
  Claude Mongeau, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Luc Jobin, Executive Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer, of Canadian National Railway Company, each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:
  1.
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
  2.
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Canadian National Railway Company.
   /s/ Claude Mongeau

/s/ Luc JobinClaude Mongeau

Luc JobinPresident and Chief Executive Officer

Executive Vice-President andChief Financial Officer